On God and Our Ultimate Purpose

On God and Our Ultimate Purpose

Stephen Maitzen

When believers find out I'm an atheist, they occasionally ask me how I keep going if I don't think my life has any ultimate significance. I tell them I'm not alone. I don't think

ever significant, and all things that end are equally insignificant. Unless we are immortal, says Craig, "Mankind is . . . no more significant than a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs, for

their lives have any ultimate significance either. Less facetiously, I their end is all the same."

admit that they've touched on an issue that's age-old and deeply

Craig never defends his claim that nothing temporary has sig-

felt. It seems many believers find themselves drawn to theism-- nificance or its implication that all temporary things are equally

especially its claim that a perfect God created them--because they insignificant. He only repeats it, many times, as if it should be obvi-

think that only God could give their lives ultimate significance.

ous. But is it true that nothing temporary has significance? Think

Some professional advocates of theism have given articulate about great music or drama. Does a world-class performance of

voice to this kind of thinking, none more so than the high-profile Tosca or King Lear lack significance just because it lasts only a few

Christian apologist and debater William Lane Craig. In his widely hours? Would it have more significance if it never ended? Hardly.

reprinted article "The Absurdity of Life without God,"* Craig argues Its significance in fact depends on its having a finite arc; it would

that only an attitude of despair on our part makes sense if God lose its significance and become unbearably tedious if it went on

didn't create us. Unless God exists, our lives are meaning-

less, trivial, "not fundamentally different from that of a

dog." On the bright side, Craig says that God can give

our lives the ultimate significance that many of us seek and that, he says, everyone ought to seek. He offers this line as a potent strategy for bringing people to

"Consider what theistic religions offer as God's actual purpose for our lives: glorifying him and

God, and he recommends wider use of it by apologists enjoying his presence forever. Surely we can ask--I

and proselytizers.

hereby do ask--`What's so great about that?'"

But what does ultimate really mean? Craig uses the

word sixteen times in his article without ever defining

it. The dictionary tells us that ultimate means "final" or

"last," but that doesn't seem to be Craig's point. One

thing he seems to mean by it is "unending": our lives can have forever. Nor does its finite length make it just as insignificant as an

ultimate significance only if they never end. He goes further: our equally long nap. Clearly, then, we need a better measure of sig-

lives have significance at all only if they have ultimate significance, nificance than mere duration.

and they lack ultimate significance if they ever end. If we cease to

I think a less obviously flawed argument must lurk below the

exist when our bodies die, our lives mean nothing.

surface of Craig's article, one that interprets ultimate to mean

Why? Because apparently nothing that comes to an end is something like "unquestionable." We know that people often try

*Reprinted as, for instance, Chapter 2 of William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 3rd ed., 2008).

to make their lives significant by seeking purposes "greater than themselves." Consider any purpose that might lend significance to an atheist's life--maybe he or she devotes his or her life to feed-

FEBRUARY / MARCH 2011 FREE INQUIRY 35

ing starving children. What more noble or more significant pur- satisfying stopping point: God's purpose in creating us, or maybe

pose could one have, after all? Still, Craig might challenge the God's purpose in creating the universe. When it comes to God's

atheist on his or her own terms: How significant is it, really, to purpose, it no longer makes sense to ask "What's so great about

postpone for a relatively short time the deaths of particular mem- that?" It's a purpose that can't be diminished no matter how far

bers of one terrestrial species on a tiny planet orbiting an undis- back from it you step. Or so the argument goes.

tinguished star in a vast, uncaring universe? If humans aren't cosmically important, why spend limited resources temporarily saving The Impossibility of Ultimate Purpose

a few specimens?

Unfortunately for theism, however, the argument doesn't work.

This version of the argument starts with the question "What's You can't put an end to those pesky questions, no matter what

so great about feeding starving children?" An answer comes pret- you do. Any purpose that we can begin to understand, we can

ty easily: "It relieves suffering by innocents and gives them a step back from and question. Consider what theistic religions

chance to flourish." But notice that we can use our imagination offer as God's actual purpose for our lives: glorifying him and

enjoying his presence forever. Surely we can ask--I

hereby do ask--"What's so great about that?" What is

it about such an activity that automatically answers the

question "Why is this ultimately worthwhile?" We're

"Theists in the mold of Craig assert, `No purpose not asking a confused or senseless question like "What

can be ultimate unless it comes from time is it on the Sun?" or "Why is here here?" It's the

God, the ultimate being.' I reply that no purpose can be ultimate evenif it comes

same question that Craig would aim at any life purpose an atheist might offer. We can sensibly question any possible answer to it in just the same way.

from the ultimate being."

Granted, in the midst of an ecstatic post-mortem

encounter with God it might not occur to you to ask,

"Why is this ultimate?" But the question would persist

even so. By the same token, you can avoid considering a

to "step back" from that answer: imagine looking at Earth from a question by getting stoned out of your mind or by committing sui-

billion miles away or looking back from a billion years in the cide in the face of it, but you don't thereby answer the question,

future. Having stepped back, we can ask: "What is (or was) so much less make it disappear.

great about doing that?" Step back far enough and any purpose

Following St. Paul, theists may reply, "In this life you see

can begin to look small and trivial in the vastness of time and through a glass, darkly. You can't fathom how the state of con-

space. It's a familiar enough idea that you can make something templating God could answer every genuine question, but trust

look insignificant, or even reveal its true insignificance, by step- us: it does, as you'll see when you get there." The trouble with

ping back from it. Think of parents who try to convince their tear- this reply is that it's just a promissory note. The same promise can

ful child that an embarrassing incident at school isn't really a rea- be offered on behalf of anything someone might declare to be our

son to stop living.

ultimate purpose.

The argument exploits our ability to take the long view--to

Suppose I said, "Our ultimate purpose in life is to make CO2 for

occupy a standpoint that makes any purpose questionable, no God's plants and trees, something we're clearly good at. You can't

matter how significant it seems: Why bother pursuing that pur- fathom how such a purpose makes our lives ultimately significant,

pose? It's not hard to get going down this path, as we've seen, but trust me: it does, as you may someday see." Believers would

and soon we may find ourselves seeking a purpose that tran- reject my proposal out of hand. Those seeking ultimate purpose

scends the limits of our earthly existence. "Our lives can't have sig- wouldn't be satisfied to learn that they're just CO2 factories, not

nificance," we may conclude, "unless their significance goes even if they learned that God had given them that job and would

beyond our time on Earth."

keep them at it forever. For one thing, such a view makes no sense

This version of the argument, then, encourages us to conclude of the fact that humans possess far higher capacities than the

that an ultimate purpose requires God's existence and is secured power to exhale.

by God's existence, because only God's existence puts a stop to

Nor would my hearers be content with the promise that some-

questions of the form "What's so great about that?" The atheis- day they'll see how that purpose counts as ultimately satisfying.

tic worldview never puts a stop to them, and hence it sooner or Such a promise merely appeals to mystery. If appealing to mystery

later leads us into despair. Theism, on the other hand, gives us a worked, then atheists could help themselves to it: "Our finite

36 FREE INQUIRY FEBRUARY / MARCH 2011

human existence is ultimately significant, even if none of us can see pose once they step back far enough from it. Notice, too, that we

how it could be." Once you resort to mystery to defend your asser- don't actually take an anything-goes attitude toward life purpos-

tions from criticism, you offer your opponents the same weapon. es: an otherwise normal person who devotes his life to collecting

"Wait," a believer might object. "Playing a part in God's pur- string is, as we say, wasting his life.

poses is by definition ultimate. The buck stops with God, the per-

Theists in the mold of Craig assert, "No purpose can be ulti-

fect and ontologically ultimate creator of the universe. Because mate unless it comes from God, the ultimate being." I reply that no

God is who he is, his purpose for us automatically counts as ulti- purpose can be ultimate even if it comes from the ultimate being.

mate." No, it doesn't--not in the sense of ultimate that launches "All right," they may concede, "but in any case it's enough if we

the argument I'm criticizing.

A purpose ordained by a god who's ulti-

mate in one sense--in the sense that no

greater being could exist--needn't be a pur-

pose that's ultimate in the sense required by

the argument. In fact, it can't be, as we saw: "Atheists lead lives that lack ultimate significance.

any purpose at all can be sensibly questioned, stepped back from, wondered about, doubted. Again, suppose we learned that we're

So do theists. It's unavoidable. And it doesn't matter which side is right about the existence of God."

made by God to produce CO2--everything

else we produce, good or bad, is extraneous

to God's plan. No sane person would find that

purpose satisfying, regardless of its divine

source. Anyone the least bit inclined to question purposes would play our part in the biggest possible project, God's plan for the uni-

question that one.

verse." At that point, I remind them of what we saw before: not

Now, my opponent might offer this proposal: "Sure, we'd be just any part will suffice. Not being a CO2 factory, for instance.

disappointed to discover that we're mere CO2 factories, so that

If, like Craig, we think that "Why bother?" requires an answer

can't be our ultimate purpose. But if God had made us merely to going beyond our earthly existence, we should admit that there's

produce CO2, then we'd find that purpose satisfying and would no nonarbitrary answer at all, not even the goal of glorifying and

feel no inclination to question it. God adjusts our intellects and enjoying God forever. The same question that made us seek tran-

aspirations to fit the purpose he gives us." But this reply is just scendence in the first place--"Why does that matter?"--can be

speculation and still only a promissory note: whatever God's pur- asked about glorifying and enjoying God. If we seek an absolute

pose for you, we promise you'll find it unquestionable. It's also stopping point in our quest for purpose and significance, we'll

incompatible with the appeal to mystery that I criticized before: if inevitably come up empty. Ultimate purpose can't exist even if

it really might be mysterious to us how our ultimate purpose God does; it's a fantasy that shouldn't draw anyone to theism.

counts as satisfying, then for all we know God did make us just to

Atheists lead lives that lack ultimate significance. So do theists.

produce CO2.

It's unavoidable. And it doesn't matter which side is right about

This proposal also invites the worry that whatever purpose we the existence of God.

end up regarding as ultimate is a purpose we'd find depressingly

lowly--like CO2 production--if only we were smarter and could take a longer view of things. If we take this proposal seriously, the worry that God made us too dumb to see the triviality of our purpose becomes itself a cause of dissatisfaction.

You might ask why we have to find a purpose unquestionable

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Rohan Maitzen for helpful comments on an earlier version of this essay. The inspiration for this essay is Thomas Nagel's article "The Absurd," published in the Journal of Philosophy 68 (1971):716?27, which contains the germ of the idea developed here.

in order to find it fully, or ultimately, satisfying. Why can't we find a purpose fully satisfying even if we can sensibly ask what's so great about it? But notice that if we take this attitude--"Go ahead and be satisfied with whatever you find satisfying"--then the argument I've been criticizing never gets off the ground. That argument depends on challenging any purpose that atheists find satisfying and inviting them to become dissatisfied with that pur-

Stephen Maitzen is professor of philosophy at Acadia University, Nova Scotia, where he specializes in the theory of knowledge and philosophy of religion. His recent academic articles include "A Dilemma for Skeptics" and "Ordinary Morality Implies Atheism." His essay "Does God Destroy Our Duty of Compassion?" appeared in the October/November 2010 issue of FREE INQUIRY.

FEBRUARY / MARCH 2011 FREE INQUIRY 37

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download